Re: very very sad: most browsers are broken :(

In article <WhTgc.30335$>,
clvrmnky <> wrote:
> On 17/04/2004 1:06 PM, Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> > In article <>, Bruce Grubb
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Since many of the errors reported by the validator are stupid things
> >>>like missing ALT tags on invisible spacer images, which don't need to
> >>>be displayed in plain text browsers anyway, I'm not particularly
> >>>concerned.
> >>
> >>HTML is NOT a layout format so those "invisible spacer images" should not
> >>be there in the first place.
> >
> >
> > Dude, c'mon. Accept reality. HTML has evolved way beyond what it was
> > designed to be, and it will *never* be stuffed back into the box that
> > academics would like it to be in. To say that spacer images don't
> > belong is like saying that 80% or more of the web shouldn't be there.
> >
> While I agree with the sentiment, this is no excuse for poor design of
> new pages. Spacer images are a stupid hack that can easily be replaced
> with valid HTML and CSS selectors. They are a sure sign that the web
> designer's kung-fu is weak.

Or like VPenman are so freaking ignorant that it is unbelievable. They let
program generate HTML for them and never bother to even see if it is even
HTML 2.0 spec complient.
> Almost all browsers have several bugwards-compatible behaviour; they can
> render a given page several different ways, all depending on a number of
> criteria (this is partially what that DOCTYPE specifier is so useful
> for). When a browser runs out of these tricks or ends up chasing it's
> tail because the DOM tree is an utter ****-up, sometimes sites break.

Or the author is Java happy.
> While spacer images and missing tag attributes should not necessarily
> break any well-designed browser, I can't help but feel that this kind of
> design suggests a general poor attitude toward web design. These
> easily-ignored errors may be hiding much worse problems.

I fully agree with this. In fact if more people stuck to the secps there
would be a lot less problems with web pages in general. Contrary to what
many authors believe the Web Design Group <http://www.htmlhelp.com/> an
HMTL 4.01 complient pages does not have to boring.
> Validation is a good starting point. Starting from a known, good
> position is always good when solving any problem; eventually pages are
> going to render in some interesting way that requires investigation.
> Instead of thrashing around hacking HTML and CSS to fix the problem,
> it's nice to be able to work from a somewhat known place. This is
> especially so when "fixing" in this context can mean "fixing for browser
> X version y, and unfixing for browser Y version x."
>
> If one is going to design a page, even for fun, I can't help but feel
> that it's a good idea to at least /know/ the rules, even if you are
> going to break them.

Personally I have no good reason to write invalid HTML. It only promotes
the writers of browsers t put into more browser unique junk in. This may
be part of the reason XHTML has not taken off - unlike HTML it is very
unforgiving of formating idiocy.

Images that are not pertinent to the content of the page should have
alt="" to help people with disabilities who use screen readers. The
standard is to always have an ALT tag, but to never put anything in
images that are strictly spacers or meaningless to the content of the
page.

Advertisements

In article <yMEhc.39558$>,
"Mabden" <> wrote:
> > > > In article <>, Bruce
> Grubb
> > > > <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Since many of the errors reported by the validator are stupid
> things
> > > >>>like missing ALT tags on invisible spacer images, which don't
> need to
> > > >>>be displayed in plain text browsers anyway, I'm not particularly
> > > >>>concerned.
>
> You, Sir or Madam, are a Sight Snob! ;-)
>
> Images that are not pertinent to the content of the page should have
> alt="" to help people with disabilities who use screen readers. The
> standard is to always have an ALT tag, but to never put anything in
> images that are strictly spacers or meaningless to the content of the
> page.
>
> Also, tables should have summary tags. Do the validators catch that?

It's not required, so something calling itself a validator of HTML isn't
required to flag it. A validator _might_ recommend it, if it's of a
prescriptive bent.

G

--
Standard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom,
they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his
"standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!